Other conditions decisions — 2013

The Board found that the appellant's spouse did not have service in the U.S. Armed Forces and therefore does not qualify for VA death benefits.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's cardiac disability, including supraventricular arrhythmia, is at least as likely as not related to his service, particularly given his presumed exposure to herbicides in Vietnam.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal for service connection for benign prostate hypertrophy (claimed as urinary incontinence secondary to diabetes mellitus).

The Veteran's appeal is remanded for further development, including a VA examination to address the state of his right hand and its relationship to his service-connected disabilities.

The Board has determined that a remand is necessary to clarify the October 2008 VA examiner's opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's vulvar cancer, including whether it is at least as likely as not related to active duty service or if it clearly and unmistakably preexisted service.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded to determine if his right fourth finger disability warrants a higher evaluation and whether any underlying condition should be service connected.

The Board found that the Veteran's current toenail fungus did not have its clinical onset in service and is not otherwise related to active duty. The claim was denied as there was no evidence of a nexus between the current condition and service.

The Veteran's right ankle disability, which was previously rated at 20 percent prior to August 17, 2012, and is now rated at 30 percent since that date, has been found to meet the criteria for a higher rating based on marked limitation of motion. The ankylosis of the subastralgar or tarsal joint in good weight-bearing position warrants a maximum 20 percent disability rating.

The Veteran's claim for non-service-connected pension benefits was denied as he is currently employed and does not meet the criteria for permanent and total disability.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for a one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund due to lack of qualifying service in the United States Armed Forces prior to July 1, 1946.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection of a gastrointestinal disorder, finding that there is no causal relationship between his current condition and active service.

Your appeal for service connection of a bilateral foot disorder is being remanded to the RO for further action, including scheduling you for a hearing before the Board.

The Board has remanded the case for further development to determine if VA provided the Veteran with hernia repair surgery in 1982 and whether it resulted in damage to his spleen. The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 is also being reviewed.

The Board found that the Veteran's service-connected lateral epicondylitis of both elbows does not warrant a rating in excess of 10 percent, as his range of motion did not meet the criteria for higher ratings under applicable diagnostic codes.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for reimbursement of expenses to bury her mother at a private cemetery, finding that VA is not permitted by law to provide such reimbursement.

The Veteran's Notice of Disagreement with the denial of his request for a refund of VEAP benefits was untimely filed, and thus his claim must be denied.

The appeal is being remanded for additional development, including scheduling a hearing before the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for thoracic strain with left sacroiliac joint dysfunction was denied as his forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine has been greater than 30 degrees, and there is no evidence of significant neurological involvement or incapacitating episodes.

The appeal is being remanded due to the submission of additional evidence that has not been considered by the RO. The appellant's claim for apportionment of service member's disability compensation benefits remains pending.

The Board finds that the appellant does not have service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including recognized guerrillas in the service of the Armed Forces of the United States. Therefore, he is not eligible for one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund.